"Everyone mocking Trump’s misreading of the First Amendment would be foolish to dismiss that feeling. Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet (which owns Google and YouTube) barred Trump from their platforms after he incited violence on Jan. 6. They are private companies, and they had every right to do so.... But the fact that Trump failed so miserably to find alternatives to these platforms reinforces the common-sense feeling that they are not ordinary private businesses. Most people understand that they are private companies but also that, in today’s America, if those three are silencing you, you are being excluded in a serious way from the public square. And many understandably wonder: Why should they get to make that call? Trump’s lawsuits certainly don’t point the way to an answer.... Yet that brings us back to the hard question: Do we want Facebook CEO Zuckerberg making those judgments?"
Writes Fred Hiatt in "Opinion: Legally, Trump’s tech lawsuit is a joke. But it raises a serious question" (WaPo).
CORRECTION: I had the wrong name for the columnist and have corrected it.
Posts
11 comments:
Alex writes:
"So, according to the left, a Christian baker who has strong moral objections cannot refuse to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple. A physician who has strong moral objections cannot refuse to provide hormones to children, or even surgical mutilation. But an entire industry can conspire to deny access to one half of the population who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights to discuss topics which many in the industry disagree with?"
Temujin writes:
"We'll get to see if it's a joke. Waldman's opinion is just that, his opinion. What Trump's lawsuit is bound to do- and this is my opinion- is to open up the questions that need to be answered but have so far avoided for the most part (outside of opinion columns or talking heads on TV). It's time for some court precedents. Facebook won this week when a court threw out two complaints that it violated antitrust laws. I have not read the details of the ruling. However, we need to address the topic of just what these companies represent. To say that they are just some private companies doing their own thing is ludicrous. This is not Dollar General. We're talking a new world here- a new age. This is the age of tech, the internet. All communication is done immediately and mostly through one of these companies. They literally own the means of communication. We ceded this to them. They've taken it, secured it, grown it, and own it- totally and completely.
"Big Tech is more powerful than our government. Think about that. They decide who is to get elected by virtue of what they censor, how they build their algorithms for information, ads, and other info. They can direct you anyway they want. And though each and every one of you think you are immune to their steering, the odds are that most of you are not. And the odds are the masses are certainly directed by them. The mob rage we see at little bits of nothing is a clue to their power.
"Are the publishers? Are they utilities? Are they merely innocent platforms on which others can put their own feelings, thoughts, lives, and accusations- as long as they meet the approved guidelines of these companies?
"This is a preposterous notion, but I think back to the time before the internet. When we communicated via a landline, or fax, or early versions of cell phones. What would have happened if AT&T or Bell South had determined what calls could be made over their lines? Let's say that they joined up with the other large telephone companies to block calls from President Reagan in 1989. They decided not to let him make calls, or send faxes that year. Preposterous, I know. But in 1989, the phone system was our main system of communication. They owned our means of communicating with the outside world. True, Pres. Regan could still buy ads on TV or in newspapers, but what if some TV networks and newspapers decided to join in with the phone companies to ban any of his communications- aside from national security?
"This happened in 2020. This happened and half the nation just yawned at it. What is the difference? We act as if the Big Tech companies are just Large Cap companies listed on the stock exchange, similar to Dupont and GM in past years. You all like having Alphabet in your 401Ks, no? In reality, without any governmental decree, without any court order, without any vote- other than the free-market, they have become our main, almost sole method of communication today. And they work in private agreement with our other media companies to decide who gets air time and who is censored. What facts are to be let out, and what facts are to be buried. How different is that from the CCP deciding who and what gets air time or who and what gets censored?
"I don't have the answer for this, but it's not, as Waldman states, 'a joke'. It's the most serious question of our time. It is the question of our freedom."
George writes:
""I want to talk about happy things, man." Those will be the famous last words of our time. "Truth emerges from the clash of adverse ideas," wrote J.S. Mill. We traded raw steak with Trump for cotton-candy anesthesia from Biden...and Facebook."
I had to look up the line, but Biden really did say that: "I want to talk about happy things, man."
R.T. O'Dactyl writes:
""Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet (which owns Google and YouTube) barred Trump from their platforms after he incited violence on Jan. 6" ... he wrote, claiming incitement of violence without evidence. [Isn't that how they put it it?]
"I have yet to see a direct quote of Trump "inciting violence" or "inciting insurrection" regarding the January 6 demonstrations that actually does incite violence or insurrection -- not even in the 2021 Articles of Impeachment (which contain a number of provably false statements).
"Most talking heads refer to his supposed incitement obliquely, as if it were something we all knew and didn't need to prove yet again. Others refer to his "dog whistles" ... and you know who hears those."
Joe writes:
"Jesus, where to start.
"'...after he incited violence on Jan. 6.'
"Why is this stated as fact? Talk about 'the big lie.'
"As for Trump et al misunderstanding the first amendment, I think he understands it perfectly but may not explain it well.
"Me and others who have a problem with big tech censorship, think of it more along the lines of: ...private companies cannot censor in the same way that the government can. The problem is big tech working with the government and on the behalf of the government to censor individual voices. In this case it's the Democrat party and the mainstream press working together with big tech to stifle voices. Hunter's laptop, anyone?
"In California, democrats had a direct line to Twitter, and tweets were shut down at their request.
"It's similar to what went on with the unmasking of names during the waning Obama years. The FBI was using private contractors to leak names to their favorite press outlets. They could (with a straight-ish face) say, 'we (the government) didn't unmask anyone...that would be illegal.'
"Claude Rains is not amused..."
Gordon writes:
"Many of the finest legal scholars of the time thought that TR’s action in bring an antitrust suit against Northern Securities Co v US 193 US 197 (1904) was also a joke. VIZ, It has been denied, and it is very doubtful whether in any case the 2d section of the anti-trust act applies to railroads. 16 Harvard Law Rev. 545, June, 1903.
"See https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/193/197.html for a lot more."
Tom writes:
""It just doesn't feel right". That's because it isn't. It's fascism. According to at least one definition, fascism includes:
""Usurpation: The state overtakes and merges with corporate power and sometimes the church" and "Government surveillance: The government takes an active role in suppressing dissent. It rewards people who report on each other." (from https://www.thebalance.com/fascism-definition-examples-pros-cons-4145419)
"Zuckerberg and Dorsey and others in the tech elite have been usurped by the Democrats and the Bureaucracy and taken over the active role in suppressing dissent.
"Another part of the definition is: "Persecution: The state violently persecutes minority groups and opponents" and we are seeing the seeds of that with the treatment of those arrested for the Jan 6th riot at the capitol. Solitary confinement for people arrested for trespassing sounds like persecution to me.
"Now we just need to see who emerges as the strong man, because Joe Biden is too old and too afflicted with dementia to fill that role."
Mrs. X writes:
"Temujin says, “Big tech is more powerful than our government.” Not if it’s the government, pulling social media’s strings. Example: various Bret Weinstein COVID discussion videos were pulled from YouTube, based on CDC guidance. The CDC is a government agency so this is likely a straight up abrogation of Weinstein’s first amendment rights. And without at least the tacit approval of government, Trump and other conservative voices would not be censored. It’s wrong for those in charge at the moment to stand by in silent approval while social media silences their opposition. It could well be illegal, too."
Temujin writes:
"Mrs. X, with respect...
"I think Big Tech and government are solid partners. But there is no mistaking the power of Big Tech. They 'play' the role of answering to Government when they have to. Such as when they appear before a Congressional committee. (I love watching Jack Dorsey bite a hole through his tongue as he tries not to say what he really wants to say to a Republican Congressman.) Government operates on the systems built for them by Big Tech. Everything they write or say is on the systems run by Big Tech. They know everything going on and- remember- our governmental employees are just like everyone else: subject to the same algorithms, search results, etc. They too, can be moved, pushed, manipulated. That You Tube/Google dropped Bret Weinstein may be per the suggestion of the CDC, but...who is the CDC? Do they dictate what can be shown on You Tube? No. Not unless Google is working with them on the overall plan, the overall statement, the narrative. The CDC cannot threaten Google with eliciting anything other than a hardy laugh.
"Nothing happens in Government without the help of Big Tech today, and going forward. And the relationship is kinda like working with the mob at this point- with Big Tech being the mob. The Government opens the door to allow Big Tech to work with them, meet with them, direct policies for them. Soon, the Government is filled with people from Big Tech, and soon after that, the Government is Big Tech, run by Big Tech. And those few who are against it will be removed. The most frequent outside visitor to Barack Obama's White House was Eric Schmidt, then CEO of Google. I suspect that roster is larger in the Biden White House.
"We're so far down the field from reining any of this in. If there is not an attempt to rein it in soon, it'll not happen. Ever."
Brian writes:
"Alex asked: " But an entire industry can conspire to deny access to one half of the population who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights to discuss topics which many in the industry disagree with?"
"Well, they sure CAN'T do that, if the topic is supported by the left half of the population. ex: a guy hung a flag at Fenway park in Boston, that said "Trump Won" He was ejected. He hung it Again at another park; was not just ejected, but BANNED from ALL MLB parks
"For a fun thought experiment; Try to imagine what would have happened to MLB, if they'd done that to a person who hung a BLM (or Antifa (or LGBTQRS)) flag?? Seriously, just TRY to imagine it."
Post a Comment